Twice in two days now, I’ve come across news articles using the term “Big Brother” to refer to private sector information practices that affect privacy. Big Brother is not an appropriate shorthand here. In his book 1984, George Orwell gave the name “Big Brother” to the oppressive government that observed and controlled the lives of the book’s protagonists. The unique oppressive powers of this governmental entity were a central motif of the book.

Jim Harper, of the Technology Liberation Front, a pseudo-libertarian tech blog opposing Net Neutrality, points out that George Orwell's dystopic 1984 was about Communism, and therefore using the Big Brother phrase in the context of corporate invasions of privacy is inappropriate, thus rendering specious, apparently, such perspectives.

This misses the point, though, doesn't it? After all, what was the primary difference between the totalitarian control of Communism in the Soviet Union and the totalitarian control of Fascism in Nazi Germany? In the latter, corporations collaborated and cooperated with the government in exercising power over the people.

Perhaps it might be safe to assume that Mr. Harper would not appreciate life under Fascism, either, where claiming it was "Big Brother" would be technically incorrect, but pretty much describe otherwise the same result for the citizens.

The important distinction, I submit, is not between Communism and Fascism, but between authoritarian and totalitarian trends and values vs. privacy and choice and liberty and even the pursuit of happiness by the people.

Ironic how people proclaiming "liberation" keep excusing and rationalizing and apologizing for anti-competitive, government-protected corporate power.

Next we're going to hear how wonderful it would be to have government-financed but purely non-government corporate mercenary forces like Blackwater ruling the streets of America. After all, it wouldn't be "Big Brother," would it?

It doesn't sound like much of a strategy. Frankly it scares the hell out of me that Mr. President is so twisted stiff about Iraq that he'll risk breaking the Army and leaving our country unable to respond to any threats to our national security and/or vital interests elsewhere in the world.

For a little over 20 minutes Wednesday night, Bush is to explain why a gradual buildup of about 20,000 additional U.S. troops, along with other steps expected to include pumping $1 billion into Iraq's economy, is the answer for a more than 3 1/2-year-old war that has only gotten deadlier with no end in sight.

The administration plans to expand an existing program to decentralize reconstruction efforts. Ten units known as Provincial Reconstruction Teams will be expanded to 19, with the additional units based in Baghdad and in Anbar province, seats of most of the worst violence. The teams, under State Department control, will administer some of the economic aid, including an effort to provide small loans to start or expand businesses.

“The president’s speech must be the beginning – not the end – of a new national discussion of our policy in Iraq,” Kennedy said. “Congress must have a genuine debate over the wisdom of the president’s plan. Let us hear the arguments for it and against it. Then let us vote on it in the light of day.”

Asked whether the supplemental spending request would provide a vehicle for his legislative proposal, Kennedy replied, “The horse will be out of the barn by the time we get there.” Although the request is expected to reach Capitol Hill next month, Congress typically spends months working on such spending proposals. Kennedy said immediate action is needed to forestall the troop surge.

With our nation perhaps more vulnerable and unprepared for foreign (non-nuclear) threats since perhaps World War I, maybe such a vote would be a good idea. The President has the Constitutional responsibility to conduct foreign policy, but when he endangers the entire nation in pursuit of an escalation of a failed policy, it's in our national interest to try to avoid that.

If the President persists in spilling our national blood, treasure -- and yes, international political and moral capital -- in the middle of Iraq's civil war (or "sectarian violence," take your pick), then perhaps impeachment should be seriously considered by the don't-rock-the-boat-too-much Democrats.

(For the record, I believe that if Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying about fellatio, George W. Bush can and should be impeached for lying about Iraq and leading America into a quagmire. I don't think it will happen, but if Bush further risks our national security by over-extending our military even more, then we all should be asking, "Why not?!")

You know the mainstream media doesn't tell you everything it knows. That's obvious. Some of the reasons why are obvious, too: limited space in newspapers, limited time on news programs, limited resources of news departments, limited number of reporters.... Some things are bound to slip through the cracks.

What this amounts to is a list of 25 stories that alternative media will have to pick up. Come on, bloggers, pick one and write about it. Because the New York Times won't write about it. And Fox News won't talk about it.